While Jeffrey Brailas’ paintings of Hermaphroditus and Salmacis diverges from Ovid’s story, the divergences help modern-day Americans to process the story better. The corner of the painting is the true story of Hermaphroditus and Salmacis: Hermaphroditus is frantically trying to get away from Salmacis, yet she will not let him get away. Yet they, in the entire painting, are very small, almost too small to depict their uncomfortable rape scene. My attention is drawn not to the rape scene, but to everywhere else: when I look at the large painting of the entire scene, it is much more complicated than Ovid depicts. Ovid simply says that there is a large forest covered with many shrubs around a gorgeous spring, but in Brailas’ painting, we see a massive jungle surrounded by desert-like rocks. In addition, Brailas added a scene into Hermaphroditus’ story in the center of the painting: a giant eagle and snake wrestling. Ovid uses this as a metaphor in the story, yet it is very artfully integrated into the physical scene in Brailas' painting. He juxtaposes the wrestling eagle and snake with the wrestling Hermaphroditus and Salmacis. A snake and an eagle are very evenly matched: the eagle can try to eat the snake and the snake can try to strangle the eagle. However, no matter what the snake does, it cannot escape, just as Hermaphroditus cannot escape Salmacis. While Brailas actually includes the eagle and snake, it adds to the story because the focus is clearly on the wrestling eagle and snake, and draws our attention away from the rape scene in the corner. As Brailas is not a Roman, but instead an American, he artfully tried to turn our attention from the rape scene, as we are not as comfortable about rape as Romans would be, which is a wonderful American adaptation. Clearly, Jeffrey Brailas’ paintings of Hermaphroditus and Salmacis do not stay fully true to Ovid’s tale, yet he helps us process this uncomfortable tale with his additions.

...she held him, fighting, she plucked having been wrestled kisses,and she throws under her hands, touching his unwilling chest,and now to the youth, in this way, now being overwhelmed there;Finally, she embraces the shining one, against [his] wish to escapejust as the serpent grabs the sort of swift royal [bird] which I raise:that [serpent] binds the hanging head and feet and embraces its spreading wings by mean of the tailor as ivies are accustomed to interweave [among] long trunks,and as an octopus under the waters restrains a having been caught strangerout of every part with having been sent out tentacles.

Ovid’s metaphors in lines 362-367 in Hermaphroditus’ story adds to the visualization of the story without making it repetitive. In the previous lines, Salmacis is trying to restrain and molest Hermaphroditus, who is frantically trying to get away from her. Ovid spends 3 lines describing their wrestling, almost to the point of getting boring. Finally, Salmacis gets a good hold on Hermaphroditus, and instead of repeating similar scenes to the last 3 lines, he instead uses a series of metaphors to make it more interesting for the reader.

He describes how a snake can “bind the hanging head and feet and embrace the bird’s spreading wings by means of the tail” (363-4). Ovid, instead of using the thrashing limbs and uncomfortable touching of the previous lines, Ovid instead uses the tail of a snake wrapping around a bird’s wings. This also makes an interesting image of how Salmacis grabs Hermaphroditus: she has wrapped herself around him like a snake, binding his arms, head, and legs.

Ovid then immediately launches into the next metaphor: “or as ivies are accustomed to interweave [among] long trunks” (365). Now, we get a whole new picture, different from the two previous: you can imagine ivy clinging to a trunk for dear life, completely surrounding it and growing off of it; so is Salmacis now clinging to dear life to Hermaphroditus, and possibly, Ovid suggests that she is so close that she is, growing off of him and completely surrounding him. This brings up a new metaphor that is not at all boring, whereas six lines of Hermaphroditus-Salmacis thrashing or bird-snake wrestling would be both repetitive and boring. And not just that, but these metaphors also describe their movements in ways that could not be said with just one metaphor or scene. Without these metaphors, it would be near-impossible to image what Hermaphroditus and Salmacis are doing. If Ovid tried to explain Salmacis' clinging without these metaphors, we would never image Salmacis as the ivy growing on trees, or the snake pinioning a royal bird in the air.

And finally, Ovid introduces the last metaphor: “...and as an octopus under the waters restrains a having been caught stranger out of every part with having been sent out tentacles” (366-7). This last metaphor is the final image we get of their wrestling before they morph into one; an octopus clinging with every tentacle onto a surprised stranger. This metaphor is the most important of the three, as it not only shows us an image that could not be said without this metaphor, but also reminds us of the ridiculousness of the whole situation. Not only did Salmacis completely surprise Hermaphroditus by the waters, but also Hermaphroditus is a complete stranger to her! This last artful metaphor helps us not only see what is happening, but also reminds us of key points of the story. Now we have 3 different metaphors, each one introducing a new visualization of the story that would otherwise be impossible to express without these metaphors. Ovid artfully uses metaphors to give us visuals that would otherwise be impossible to express in words, and also keeps the story interesting and not repetitive.

Powered by Create your own unique website with customizable templates.